Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

In short, the Ukrainian army that Russia faced in Kherson and around Kharkov was unlike any Ukrainian opponent it had previously faced. Russia was no longer fighting a Ukrainian army equipped by NATO, but rather a NATO army manned by Ukrainians.
Click to expand...

that comes from an article by someone whose work i think is characterised by anti-ukrainian sentiment, or pro-russian, but i think he makes a few good points. in brief, that the ukrainian army has now become a much more cohesive entity. not the hybrid half-soviet half-nato outfit it was, but now a much more conventional nato army. if you ignore his bias you can find some compliments to ukrainian military know-how inbetween the lines. he gives a good overview on how ukraine dummied the russians into making a massive error, too, but he is biased and as such you should probably take his compliments in higher regard because he must be loathed to admit it.

here.

but this is a good example of the group recognition principle @Raoul was talking about. some people, like this, do operate on those lines. it's because their material is monetized. it doesn't extend here, imo, because what we have is an anonymous forum where people just advance arguments back and forth but it does absolutely exist once you throw money and status in real life into the mix.
 
neverdie said:
that comes from an article by someone whose work i think is characterised by anti-ukrainian sentiment, or pro-russian, but i think he makes a few good points. in brief, that the ukrainian army has now become a much more cohesive entity. not the hybrid half-soviet half-nato outfit it was, but now a much more conventional nato army. if you ignore his bias you can find some compliments to ukrainian military know-how inbetween the lines. he gives a good overview on how ukraine dummied the russians into making a massive error, too, but he is biased and as such you should probably take his compliments in higher regard because he must be loathed to admit it.

here.

but this is a good example of the group recognition principle @Raoul was talking about. some people, like this, do operate on those lines. it's because their material is monetized. it doesn't extend here, imo, because what we have is an anonymous forum where people just advance arguments back and forth but it does absolutely exist once you throw money and status in real life into the mix.
Click to expand...
Irony is that Russian excuse for going into attacking Ukraine was supposed Ukrainian flirting with NATO and what the war achieved is Ukrainian army got modernized and close to NATO standards.
 
neverdie said:
that comes from an article by someone whose work i think is characterised by anti-ukrainian sentiment, or pro-russian, but i think he makes a few good points. in brief, that the ukrainian army has now become a much more cohesive entity. not the hybrid half-soviet half-nato outfit it was, but now a much more conventional nato army. if you ignore his bias you can find some compliments to ukrainian military know-how inbetween the lines. he gives a good overview on how ukraine dummied the russians into making a massive error, too, but he is biased and as such you should probably take his compliments in higher regard because he must be loathed to admit it.

here.

but this is a good example of the group recognition principle @Raoul was talking about. some people, like this, do operate on those lines. it's because their material is monetized. it doesn't extend here, imo, because what we have is an anonymous forum where people just advance arguments back and forth but it does absolutely exist once you throw money and status in real life into the mix.
Click to expand...

Ritter is well known in the US from his days as an inspector in the 90s, through his arrest attempting to solicit sex from a minor, to his more recent attempt at becoming a policy expert

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html
 
Real Name said:
Irony is that Russian excuse for going into attacking Ukraine was supposed Ukrainian flirting with NATO and what the war achieved is Ukrainian army got modernized and close to NATO standards.
Click to expand...
indeed. that's something that i've seen the most anti-nato peole in the world point out from the first. that aside from being criminal, because it was preemptive, it was criminally stupid. if they wanted the two apart, their action drove them together.
 
Raoul said:
Ritter is well known in the US from his days as an inspector in the 90s, through his arrest attempting to solicit sex from a minor, to his more recent attempt at becoming a policy expert

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html
Click to expand...
a storied career. he's only appeared on my peripheral radar since the war began. basically wrote him off as fairly biased man with axe to grind quite early on which is why the about turn is interesting, so thought i'd post it for others.
 
Real Name said:
Irony is that Russian excuse for going into attacking Ukraine was supposed Ukrainian flirting with NATO and what the war achieved is Ukrainian army got modernized and close to NATO standards.
Click to expand...

In retrospect it was a fabricated excuse all along, just as invading to repel fascism was fabricated. It was all a desperate attempt to assuage a sense of delusional nationalism through empire building. The irony being that it has made Russia crumble on the international stage.
 
neverdie said:
the argument wasn't that ukraine couldn't make breakthroughs. it was that it couldn't win, partially, which i still think is true but depends on how you define win. does it mean ultimate defeat of russia? because that is beyond ukraine and nato. does it mean taking the lost territory back? these questions were asked by very senior figures in foreign affairs from the outset. they weren't criticisms made by anti-ukranians. they were questions asked by people who wanted clarification over the kind of war their countries were dragging them into. the criticism was always the lack of clarity regarding the goal and ad hoc policy making. saying one thing which implied one level of support one day and another which hinted at something far larger and more escalatory the next.

i do think they're fighting russia to the last ukrainian but that doesn't mean that ukraine can't benefit from it. were the americans not fighting the soviets to the last afghani? did the afghanis care? so of course they're using ukraine. it's not a single-use kind of operation. the ukrainians aren't idiots. they know they have use-value to the west and they know their position. nato wants to fight russia via proxy. ukraine wants to fight russia directly. match made in heaven, no? it's not a contradiction, basically. my only criticism would depend upon what the west does over the next couple of years. not what it's doing now. what happens when the russians push back. and then ukraine pushes back. and on and on. all yet to come.

unfortunately i think this will be a massively drawn out war and last for years with the positions being unpredictable but possibly as they were before february.

the other thing is that if you think people making criticisms of the war are on russia's side, then you have, probably, been misled. some will be, for whatever reason which they themselves will scarcely comprehend, but most are not. most i've seen had almost no negative opinions of ukraine and almost no positive opinions on russia, but a highly critical view of nato. which i think is historically justified.
Click to expand...

My point is that, that argument in bold is wrong now.

Whether it eventually does or not, these breakthroughs show the real possibility that Ukraine could win.

In fact as long as the west continues or increases its support it is more likely than not that they will push Russian out of Ukraine and inflict a considerable and probably irreversible defeat on Russia.

A highly critical view of NATO is one thing but a highly critical view of NATO for supporting Ukraine after the invasion means what? That NATO shouldn't have supported Ukraine which would have lead to a Russian victory.

At what point are these opinions going to be dropped as outdated and surpassed by evidence on the ground. The assumptions of many about Russian power and Ukrainian weakness were wrong and that changes everything.
 
sun_tzu said:
How much choice did the teachers have about going there in the first place?
Click to expand...
They weren't forced to go there, it was a voluntary initiative — Russia simply offered significantly higher salaries for those teachers that would agree to work in occupied territories and it was enough. Teachers aren't soldiers — at least not quite yet.
 
neverdie said:
that comes from an article by someone whose work i think is characterised by anti-ukrainian sentiment
Click to expand...

Guess you could say that. In this January article he refers to Ukraine as a “Nazi-worshipping, thoroughly corrupt nation which has nothing in common with the rest of Europe.” Apart from that the article is noticeable for how much he gets badly wrong.
 
What is your take guys on this conclusion of the article @neverdie posted.


In the end, I still believe the end game remains the same — Russia will win. But the cost for extending this war has become much higher for all parties involved.

The successful Ukrainian counteroffensive needs to be put into a proper perspective. The casualties Ukraine suffered, and is still suffering, to achieve this victory are unsustainable. Ukraine has exhausted its strategic reserves, and they will have to be reconstituted if Ukraine were to have any aspirations of continuing an advance along these lines. This will take months.

Russia, meanwhile, has lost nothing more than some indefensible space. Russian casualties were minimal, and equipment losses readily replaced.

Russia has actually strengthened its military posture by creating strong defensive lines in the north capable of withstanding any Ukrainian attack, while increasing combat power available to complete the task of liberating the remainder of the Donetsk People’s Republic under Ukrainian control.

Russia has far more strategic depth than Ukraine. Russia is beginning to strike critical infrastructure targets, such as power stations, that will not only cripple the Ukrainian economy, but also their ability to move large amounts of troops rapidly via train.

Russia will learn from the lessons the Kharkov defeat taught them and continue its stated mission objectives.

The bottom line – the Kharkov offensive was as good as it will get for Ukraine, while Russia hasn’t come close to hitting rock bottom. Changes need to be made by Russia to fix the problems identified through the Kharkov defeat. Winning a battle is one thing; winning a war another.

For Ukraine, the huge losses suffered by their own forces, combined with the limited damage inflicted on Russia means the Kharkov offensive is, at best, a Pyrrhic victory, one that does not change the fundamental reality that Russia is winning, and will win, the conflict in Ukraine.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
A highly critical view of NATO is one thing but a highly critical view of NATO for supporting Ukraine after the invasion means what? That NATO shouldn't have supported Ukraine which would have lead to a Russian victory.
Click to expand...
yeah i get your point. would just say that most anti-nato types didn't oppose nato's support of ukraine after the war. they took issue with the whole thing prior to the war, going back years. all a bit of a moot point now.

i think it comes back to what does victory look like? pre-february lines? i think that's possible. total defeat of russia? i don't think that's feasible and probably not something nato itself takes seriously, at least you'd hope so. would still say let's see where we are in a few months. russia has shown that taking land is the easy part. holding it is the troublesome aspect. though if money and support is starting to tell, who knows.
 
Real Name said:
What is your take guys on this conclusion of the article @neverdie posted.


In the end, I still believe the end game remains the same — Russia will win. But the cost for extending this war has become much higher for all parties involved.

The successful Ukrainian counteroffensive needs to be put into a proper perspective. The casualties Ukraine suffered, and is still suffering, to achieve this victory are unsustainable. Ukraine has exhausted its strategic reserves, and they will have to be reconstituted if Ukraine were to have any aspirations of continuing an advance along these lines. This will take months.

Russia, meanwhile, has lost nothing more than some indefensible space. Russian casualties were minimal, and equipment losses readily replaced.

Russia has actually strengthened its military posture by creating strong defensive lines in the north capable of withstanding any Ukrainian attack, while increasing combat power available to complete the task of liberating the remainder of the Donetsk People’s Republic under Ukrainian control.

Russia has far more strategic depth than Ukraine. Russia is beginning to strike critical infrastructure targets, such as power stations, that will not only cripple the Ukrainian economy, but also their ability to move large amounts of troops rapidly via train.

Russia will learn from the lessons the Kharkov defeat taught them and continue its stated mission objectives.

The bottom line – the Kharkov offensive was as good as it will get for Ukraine, while Russia hasn’t come close to hitting rock bottom. Changes need to be made by Russia to fix the problems identified through the Kharkov defeat. Winning a battle is one thing; winning a war another.

For Ukraine, the huge losses suffered by their own forces, combined with the limited damage inflicted on Russia means the Kharkov offensive is, at best, a Pyrrhic victory, one that does not change the fundamental reality that Russia is winning, and will win, the conflict in Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Reads like something one of Putin's propagandists on Russian TV would say. It wouldn't surprise me if he's in some way funded by Russian money.
 
Last edited:
Real Name said:
The bottom line – the Kharkov offensive was as good as it will get for Ukraine, while Russia hasn’t come close to hitting rock bottom. Changes need to be made by Russia to fix the problems identified through the Kharkov defeat. Winning a battle is one thing; winning a war another.
Click to expand...
my take on it is there is no way he can know any of this. he's right that winning a battle or a breakthrough isn't the same as winning the war but he hasn't given a single source for his conclusion that russia will somehow win anyway. it's ideological, not critical or distanced imo.
 
Real Name said:
What is your take guys on this conclusion of the article @neverdie posted.


In the end, I still believe the end game remains the same — Russia will win. But the cost for extending this war has become much higher for all parties involved.

The successful Ukrainian counteroffensive needs to be put into a proper perspective. The casualties Ukraine suffered, and is still suffering, to achieve this victory are unsustainable. Ukraine has exhausted its strategic reserves, and they will have to be reconstituted if Ukraine were to have any aspirations of continuing an advance along these lines. This will take months.

Russia, meanwhile, has lost nothing more than some indefensible space. Russian casualties were minimal, and equipment losses readily replaced.

Russia has actually strengthened its military posture by creating strong defensive lines in the north capable of withstanding any Ukrainian attack, while increasing combat power available to complete the task of liberating the remainder of the Donetsk People’s Republic under Ukrainian control.

Russia has far more strategic depth than Ukraine. Russia is beginning to strike critical infrastructure targets, such as power stations, that will not only cripple the Ukrainian economy, but also their ability to move large amounts of troops rapidly via train.

Russia will learn from the lessons the Kharkov defeat taught them and continue its stated mission objectives.

The bottom line – the Kharkov offensive was as good as it will get for Ukraine, while Russia hasn’t come close to hitting rock bottom. Changes need to be made by Russia to fix the problems identified through the Kharkov defeat. Winning a battle is one thing; winning a war another.

For Ukraine, the huge losses suffered by their own forces, combined with the limited damage inflicted on Russia means the Kharkov offensive is, at best, a Pyrrhic victory, one that does not change the fundamental reality that Russia is winning, and will win, the conflict in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Can a loss be a win?
 
Real Name said:
What is your take guys on this conclusion of the article @neverdie posted.


In the end, I still believe the end game remains the same — Russia will win. But the cost for extending this war has become much higher for all parties involved.

The successful Ukrainian counteroffensive needs to be put into a proper perspective. The casualties Ukraine suffered, and is still suffering, to achieve this victory are unsustainable. Ukraine has exhausted its strategic reserves, and they will have to be reconstituted if Ukraine were to have any aspirations of continuing an advance along these lines. This will take months.

Russia, meanwhile, has lost nothing more than some indefensible space. Russian casualties were minimal, and equipment losses readily replaced.

Russia has actually strengthened its military posture by creating strong defensive lines in the north capable of withstanding any Ukrainian attack, while increasing combat power available to complete the task of liberating the remainder of the Donetsk People’s Republic under Ukrainian control.

Russia has far more strategic depth than Ukraine. Russia is beginning to strike critical infrastructure targets, such as power stations, that will not only cripple the Ukrainian economy, but also their ability to move large amounts of troops rapidly via train.

Russia will learn from the lessons the Kharkov defeat taught them and continue its stated mission objectives.

The bottom line – the Kharkov offensive was as good as it will get for Ukraine, while Russia hasn’t come close to hitting rock bottom. Changes need to be made by Russia to fix the problems identified through the Kharkov defeat. Winning a battle is one thing; winning a war another.

For Ukraine, the huge losses suffered by their own forces, combined with the limited damage inflicted on Russia means the Kharkov offensive is, at best, a Pyrrhic victory, one that does not change the fundamental reality that Russia is winning, and will win, the conflict in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure they aren’t taking huge losses since the Russian are running away like big girls pants?
 
cyberman said:
Pretty sure they aren’t taking huge losses since the Russian are running away like big girls pants?
Click to expand...
Yeah that and the fact from the stuff he's writing it seems they have about 5000 soldiers in reserve or something and that's already dried out..
 
Real Name said:
The successful Ukrainian counteroffensive needs to be put into a proper perspective. The casualties Ukraine suffered, and is still suffering, to achieve this victory are unsustainable. Ukraine has exhausted its strategic reserves, and they will have to be reconstituted if Ukraine were to have any aspirations of continuing an advance along these lines. This will take months.

Russia, meanwhile, has lost nothing more than some indefensible space. Russian casualties were minimal, and equipment losses readily replaced.
Click to expand...
Seems like a misinformed opinion, at least based on the publicly available information, it's obviously hard to assess the losses when neither side wants to disclose their real losses (and Russia does everything in its power not to give out ANY info at all).

Real Name said:
Russia has actually strengthened its military posture by creating strong defensive lines in the north capable of withstanding any Ukrainian attack, while increasing combat power available to complete the task of liberating the remainder of the Donetsk People’s Republic under Ukrainian control.
Click to expand...
This reads very much alike the reports about the substantial and consistent negative growth of Russian economy.


I've taken a look at the article. I don't know if he's simply an idiot or if he's getting paid (and those options aren't mutually exclusive) but I don't think that this constitutes as journalism.
 
harms said:
Seems like a misinformed opinion, at least based on the publicly available information, it's obviously hard to assess the losses when neither side wants to disclose their real losses (and Russia does everything in its power not to give out ANY info at all).


This reads very much alike the reports about the substantial and consistent negative growth of Russian economy.


I've taken a look at the article. I don't know if he's simply an idiot or if he's getting paid (and those options aren't mutually exclusive) but I don't think that this constitutes as journalism.
Click to expand...
Also the fact he's saying stuff like 'liberation of Donbas' instead of occupation says a lot.
 
Raoul said:
In retrospect it was a fabricated excuse all along, just as invading to repel fascism was fabricated. It was all a desperate attempt to assuage a sense of delusional nationalism through empire building. The irony being that it has made Russia crumble on the international stage.
Click to expand...
i still think the nato thing was real for russia. if you take syria and the other areas into account, putin and the kremlin were absolutely viewing this as a proxy war against nato imo. and ukraine had become de facto nato state, which is why they had a hybrid kind of outfit in the first place. russia's move, i think, was to create a large buffer and push nato out. if they could have forced regime change in kyiv, then that would have been a massive bonus. i think the initial invasion, with the mile long buildup, had to do with forcing ukraine to blink in tandem with apparent officials who had been bought off or pressured into launching an internal coup. after that failed, they basically had to go back to a more limited kind of war which only ever seemed to encompass the south and the east.

but i say it's moot because it becomes one massive "if they hadn't done this" type argument. if russia had been otherwise, ukraine wouldn't have invited nato in. if nato had been otherwise, russia wouldn't have done whatever. and that kind of argument seems pointless at the moment.
 
2cents said:
Guess you could say that. In this January article he refers to Ukraine as a “Nazi-worshipping, thoroughly corrupt nation which has nothing in common with the rest of Europe.” Apart from that the article is noticeable for how much he gets badly wrong.
Click to expand...
yeah, haven't read that article but didn't need to. i understood from the limited exposure i've had to him that he was pushing an agenda. i doubt he's been paid by the kremlin to do it because that would see him locked up for life over espionage charges. more likely personal, ideological, axe grinding.
 
neverdie said:
yeah, haven't read that article but didn't need to. i understood from the limited exposure i've had to him that he was pushing an agenda. i doubt he's been paid by the kremlin to do it because that would see him locked up for life over espionage charges. more likely personal, ideological, axe grinding.
Click to expand...
Sometimes it's not a straight payment for propaganda type thing, but these types of public commenters or scholars find that they have to exist in one specific sphere of thought/argument in order to be relevant enough to make book sales, be paid to pen articles, give talks, etc

I remember one unrelated case of a guy in Brazil who was once an investment manager, wrote books about that and motivational stuff, then started to comment on economics and politics from a right-leaning perspective, then a few years ago switched to commenting from a left-leaning perspective. Not that a person doesn't have a right to change their views, but this is a guy heavy on self-promotion and making a $ for his work. He probably over time just moved into the space where he could stay most relevant, but to keep that relevance he doesn't get to offer balanced perspective/views at any given time, he stays partisan to whatever side he currently finds himself in.

Scott Ritter clearly has had some issues over time. I've heard him talk about his time as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq and found that relevant, and that he was speaking somewhat knowledgeably and credibly had first-hand contact with the shenanigans he reported. Then the US govt did seem to try to screw him with I think espionage charges over sharing intel with the Israelis or Brits of all people. That was dropped, but then he got himself into trouble over the solicitation with minors, and seems like he definitely has an axe to grind ever since.
 
neverdie said:
the argument wasn't that ukraine couldn't make breakthroughs. it was that it couldn't win, partially, which i still think is true but depends on how you define win. does it mean ultimate defeat of russia? because that is beyond ukraine and nato.
Click to expand...
Why is it?
 
Real Name said:
What is your take guys on this conclusion of the article @neverdie posted.


In the end, I still believe the end game remains the same — Russia will win. But the cost for extending this war has become much higher for all parties involved.

The successful Ukrainian counteroffensive needs to be put into a proper perspective. The casualties Ukraine suffered, and is still suffering, to achieve this victory are unsustainable. Ukraine has exhausted its strategic reserves, and they will have to be reconstituted if Ukraine were to have any aspirations of continuing an advance along these lines. This will take months.

Russia, meanwhile, has lost nothing more than some indefensible space. Russian casualties were minimal, and equipment losses readily replaced.

Russia has actually strengthened its military posture by creating strong defensive lines in the north capable of withstanding any Ukrainian attack, while increasing combat power available to complete the task of liberating the remainder of the Donetsk People’s Republic under Ukrainian control.

Russia has far more strategic depth than Ukraine. Russia is beginning to strike critical infrastructure targets, such as power stations, that will not only cripple the Ukrainian economy, but also their ability to move large amounts of troops rapidly via train.

Russia will learn from the lessons the Kharkov defeat taught them and continue its stated mission objectives.

The bottom line – the Kharkov offensive was as good as it will get for Ukraine, while Russia hasn’t come close to hitting rock bottom. Changes need to be made by Russia to fix the problems identified through the Kharkov defeat. Winning a battle is one thing; winning a war another.

For Ukraine, the huge losses suffered by their own forces, combined with the limited damage inflicted on Russia means the Kharkov offensive is, at best, a Pyrrhic victory, one that does not change the fundamental reality that Russia is winning, and will win, the conflict in Ukraine.
Click to expand...

The idea that Ukraine was taking huge losses in the Kharkiv offensive while Russia was taking minimal ones, is pure undiluted copium. It's more likely to be the opposite. Russian army was outnumbered, outgunned and outmanoeuvred in that theatre so it was in full retreat. The Ukrainians were advancing rapidly with next to no resistance. You tend to take bigger casualties in a hasty retreat than the advancing army. If the Ukrainians were taking large casualties they would have slowed down, instead of marching on at breakneck speed.

I think they are intentionally mixing information from two different theatres of the war. Russia amassed a lot of troops in Kherson, in anticipation of the Ukrainian offensive there. The Kherson offensive achieved some small successes, but according to various sources that did come at a high cost due to better Russian preparedness there. However what might apply to Kherson, clearly does not apply to Kharkiv. And the efforts to correlate the two are disinformation.
 
Real Name said:
What is your take guys on this conclusion of the article @neverdie posted.


In the end, I still believe the end game remains the same — Russia will win. But the cost for extending this war has become much higher for all parties involved.

The successful Ukrainian counteroffensive needs to be put into a proper perspective. The casualties Ukraine suffered, and is still suffering, to achieve this victory are unsustainable. Ukraine has exhausted its strategic reserves, and they will have to be reconstituted if Ukraine were to have any aspirations of continuing an advance along these lines. This will take months.

Russia, meanwhile, has lost nothing more than some indefensible space. Russian casualties were minimal, and equipment losses readily replaced.

Russia has actually strengthened its military posture by creating strong defensive lines in the north capable of withstanding any Ukrainian attack, while increasing combat power available to complete the task of liberating the remainder of the Donetsk People’s Republic under Ukrainian control.

Russia has far more strategic depth than Ukraine. Russia is beginning to strike critical infrastructure targets, such as power stations, that will not only cripple the Ukrainian economy, but also their ability to move large amounts of troops rapidly via train.

Russia will learn from the lessons the Kharkov defeat taught them and continue its stated mission objectives.

The bottom line – the Kharkov offensive was as good as it will get for Ukraine, while Russia hasn’t come close to hitting rock bottom. Changes need to be made by Russia to fix the problems identified through the Kharkov defeat. Winning a battle is one thing; winning a war another.

For Ukraine, the huge losses suffered by their own forces, combined with the limited damage inflicted on Russia means the Kharkov offensive is, at best, a Pyrrhic victory, one that does not change the fundamental reality that Russia is winning, and will win, the conflict in Ukraine.
Click to expand...

He's claiming several things that sound at best unlikely and at worst deliberate misstruths, such as:

Ukraine is losing 10 soldiers to every soldier Russia loses in the Donbass

That Russia didn't suffer serious losses in Kharkov.

Russia didn't lose any significant equipment. Yet the transfer of military equiplement from Russia to Ukraine is the highest transfer of military equipment in any one day post WW2.

If all those facts are untrue, it makes his conclusions to be worthless. I'd guess it's a propoganda piece
 
Real Name said:
What is your take guys on this conclusion of the article @neverdie posted.


In the end, I still believe the end game remains the same — Russia will win. But the cost for extending this war has become much higher for all parties involved.

The successful Ukrainian counteroffensive needs to be put into a proper perspective. The casualties Ukraine suffered, and is still suffering, to achieve this victory are unsustainable. Ukraine has exhausted its strategic reserves, and they will have to be reconstituted if Ukraine were to have any aspirations of continuing an advance along these lines. This will take months.

Russia, meanwhile, has lost nothing more than some indefensible space. Russian casualties were minimal, and equipment losses readily replaced.

Russia has actually strengthened its military posture by creating strong defensive lines in the north capable of withstanding any Ukrainian attack, while increasing combat power available to complete the task of liberating the remainder of the Donetsk People’s Republic under Ukrainian control.

Russia has far more strategic depth than Ukraine. Russia is beginning to strike critical infrastructure targets, such as power stations, that will not only cripple the Ukrainian economy, but also their ability to move large amounts of troops rapidly via train.

Russia will learn from the lessons the Kharkov defeat taught them and continue its stated mission objectives.

The bottom line – the Kharkov offensive was as good as it will get for Ukraine, while Russia hasn’t come close to hitting rock bottom. Changes need to be made by Russia to fix the problems identified through the Kharkov defeat. Winning a battle is one thing; winning a war another.

For Ukraine, the huge losses suffered by their own forces, combined with the limited damage inflicted on Russia means the Kharkov offensive is, at best, a Pyrrhic victory, one that does not change the fundamental reality that Russia is winning, and will win, the conflict in Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Straight out of RAWK's 'sometimes a loss can be a win' playbook.
 
Apologies if it's been posted but this quote from Zelensky in reponse to the attack on civilian infrastructure is quite powerful and worth repeating I think

Do you still think we are one people? Do you still think you can scare us, break us, force us to make concessions? Don't you really get it? Don't you understand who we are? What we stand for? What we are all about?

Read my lips: Without gas or without you? Without you. Without light or without you? Without you. Without water or without you. Without you. Without food or without you? Without you.

Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as frightening and deadly for us as your friendship and brotherhood. But history will put everything in its place. And we will be with gas, light, water and food...and WITHOUT you!"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
About that NYTimes article...the Ukrainians wargamed the scenarios with the British and Americans. Seems like EU countries aren't involved in these military matters aside from supplies?
 
NotThatSoph said:
By the first sentence I simply mean that ascribing to a sphere of influence worldview doesn't necessitate disregarding other causes of war; saying that encroaching on Russia's sphere is an escalation that risks conflict doesn't mean that appeasement is some panacea. In fact it can't necessitate this because a sphere's power exist due to the threat of force. If Ukraine weren't under some sort of implicit or explicit threat Russia wouldn't have any influence.

So maybe the war would have happened anyway. At some point it was unavoidable, I don't think it was always so but if it wasn't I don't know how big a role the West played. I'm pretty sure it played some role, but it might have been miniscule and irrelevant, I simply don't know. The war would certainly have been different, though, very different.

I'm not saying that Ukraine would have been better off under this or that. I don't know how the different scenarios would look, I don't know their likelyhoods, and I don't know what the Ukrainians would prefer or what they would be willing to risk to achieve that. At the point the war happened Ukraine's preferences are pretty clear, though.

I still don't get the point about futility. You say that the analysis might have held under the USSR era, but it's not like it was inconceivable that the cold war could have turned hot. If that happened the spheres would likely break or move, either because the world ended or because someone came out on top.

About Mearsheimer, I don't know what sort of blame he's talking about. Is he saying that the war wouldn't have happened without the West's actions? If so then he's either right or wrong about that, but Russia's latest setbacks are hardly relevant. Is he laying the moral blame on the West? If so then that's rather spicy, but this latest grandstanding isn't solely about him, it's the "whataboutism posse in the geopolitics thread": it's about anyone questioning the narrative where the West or NATO is nothing but passive observers.

And, again, even if this supposed posse is completely wrong, why would you need to spare them a thought because of Ukraine making a breakthrough? Where has any of them expressed a wish for Russian victory? It doesn't make any sense, and in my view is just an extension of following the war like a game. It's a crowd chant, a boo, not a sentence with actual meaning. This isn't directed at you.
Click to expand...
Here's the famous video that went viral, which is how most people, like me, we're introduced to him. When people criticize him I expect this is what they're talking about.

 
2cents said:
Guess you could say that. In this January article he refers to Ukraine as a “Nazi-worshipping, thoroughly corrupt nation which has nothing in common with the rest of Europe.” Apart from that the article is noticeable for how much he gets badly wrong.
Click to expand...
It's an amazing read 8 months later. How to be wrong about almost everything.
 
Beans said:
Here's the famous video that went viral, which is how most people, like me, we're introduced to him. When people criticize him I expect this is what they're talking about.

Click to expand...


He's one of those guys IR students come across in their studies of various IR theories. He's probably one of the more famous realists of the past 50 years behind Ken Waltz.
 
Raoul said:
Good thread as usual from him. I would also caution against triumphalism where the gains of the past week are presumed to continue indefinitely, which isn't very realistic.
Click to expand...

It's been difficult not to be triumphalist after that astonishing 48 hour period, but I agree, it's necessary. I think we're hearing an absolute fraction of current actions at the moment, so we shouldn't assume that a lack of movement of lines on a map equates to a lack of offensive activity. There are apparently (may be complete BS, who knows) around 25'000 Russian troops in that area of Kherson that's bordered by rivers on both sides, with occasional rumours of negotiations to surrender. Whether or not that ever happens I'd bet that Ukraine is doing everything it can to systematically degrade Russian armour and create the right conditions for an advance there. Whilst also keeping desperately needed Russian manpower and equipment cooped up in area with very little in the way of resupply, where they can't do a huge amount of damage. I think Western Europe and the US have accepted that this war is going to go on through the winter, and that Putin will use that winter in any way he can. So perhaps there are around 12-14 months before winter 2023/24, where it may be far more difficult to sell the idea of continued involvement to the general public.
 
Raoul said:
He's one of those guys IR students come across in their studies of various IR theories. He's probably one of the more famous realists of the past 50 years behind Ken Waltz.
Click to expand...
He certainly wasn't wrong about Ukraine getting wrecked as a consequence.

But was wrong about Putin being "too smart" to invade and try to occupy Ukraine, having the examples of history like Afghanistan and being a shrewd tactician. I think he mistakes Putin's desire to control other countries through proxies, like in Belarus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.